Measure is intended to convince federal lawmakers that the money will go toward restoration and protection efforts

Baton Rouge -- A proposed constitutional amendment that would have required all the money the state receives from fines resulting from the BP oil spill be put into a coastal restoration fund gained a significant alteration Tuesday, with a Louisiana Senate panel tacking on a provision that legislators can redirect the money with a two-thirds vote of both chambers.

Rep. Simone Champagne, R-Erath

House Bill 812 would allow voters to decide in November whether to funnel all Clean Water Act fines related to the disaster to the state's Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund. Rep. Simone Champagne, R-Erath, said the measure is necessary to convince federal lawmakers and other states affected by the spill that the money will go toward restoration and protection efforts.

"This bill's intent is to show Congress and the other states that we are prepared to do specifically what they requested we do, which is protect the coastline," Champagne said.

But a last-minute amendment in the Senate Finance Committee, proposed by Sen. Edwin Murray, D-New Orleans, would allow state lawmakers to override that provision.

The amendment, which senators said also has the support of Senate President John Alario, R-Westwego, is intended to help avoid worsening the state's current budget situation, which has left significant portions of the budget specifically dedicated to various uses, leaving little available for general purposes.

"We've taken a lot of money off the table for other things," Murray said.

The amended version of the bill, which passed unanimously and now heads to the full Senate, would require that lawmakers identify a specific use for any money taken from the fines and gain the approval of two-thirds of the Legislature. The money would not be available for projects that do not fit any of the requirements that Congress puts on the money.

Garrett Graves, head of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, said that it was likely that specific uses for the money would be identified anyway, but argued that the amendment sent the wrong message to the federal government.

He noted that the state's congressional delegation has been pitching the use of the fines based on the idea that the money would go straight toward coastal projects.

It is not yet clear exactly how money from the spill will be distributed. Both chambers of Congress have passed versions of the RESTORE Act, which lays out a framework for distributing money through a council that would include presidential representatives as well as state officials, but lawmakers are still debating how to reconcile differences between the two versions.

It is also possible the federal government will enter into a consent decree with whoever is found to be responsible for the spill, a legal framework that would likely identify specific projects that would be financed by the fines.

Officials have previously said that the spill could result in fines of $1,000 per barrel of oil spilled or $4,000 per barrel spilled, depending on whether it is determined that the disaster is the result of gross negligence.